Is it really a 6 to 3 majority on the Supreme Court?

They have been anything but shortchanged.

Just because expectations are not met does not mean they were shortchanged.

Most people (and I am referring to the great mass of both Republicans and Democrats) have no ■■■■■■■ clue about the Supreme Court.

It has been operating generally right of center for a very long time.

The last truly liberal activist court ended with Chief Justice Warren’s retirement in 1969. Frankly, if your younger than 65 years of age, you have no ■■■■■■■ clue about living under a liberal activist Supreme Court. :smile:

Actually, yes it does. When you vote, whether it is for a Democrat or a Republican, one expects the candidate will represent their personal interests. Of course that’s pretty ridiculous (which is why I inserted the word “naïve”) but they are shortchanged, nonetheless.

I would say that the Kelo v. New London decision was pretty damned activist. It turned the long standing understanding of the use of eminent domain on its head.

So…They’re shortchanged because they naively set their expectations too high? I don’t get it.

Let me put it this way … when someone you vote for does not act in a manner that you expected, don’t you feel cheated?

But you cannot judge a court by single decision or small number of decisions taken from the roughly 80 to 100 decisions a year the court makes.

No, because people have to make compromises and situations are fluid. It’s why I’m not mad at the Governor of Michigan who promised to fix the roads.

The legislature is GOP and her proposals were dead on arrival. I set my expectations correctly.

I understand the logic though, but I think it’s not correct. Naivety is not a defense against being shortchanged. You are either shortchanged or you are not.

Did I say you can?

I wanted to make the point that any court can issue an outlier decision.

You are certainly free to hold that opinion. But most people, whey they do not get what they paid for (expected in a candidate,) they feel shortchanged. Specifically, when a judge appointed by “their” President rules counter to the political philosophy of that President, they are not getting what they expected and, therefore, are shortchanged. That does not mean that the ruling was Constitutionally incorrect, it simply means it was unexpected for the people who thought that a judge appointed by a conservative/liberal President will make rulings consistent with conservative/liberal philosophy.

I just find it fascinating that the liberal justices vote in lock-step much more often than the conservative justices. Seems like liberals are more afraid of breaking from their mold.


You have point about Roberts, he is logical but I also think he isn’t being a knee jerk conservative because his name is associated with the current court and he is concerned about his legacy.

I doubt that Roberts considers his image as a conservative when making rulings in the least.


He’s a centrist.

1 Like

I object to calling Warren liberal. He apolitically interpreted the Constitution to the best of his ability.

For fun: Or their methods lead to more consistent and determinate conclusions.

i would not be surprised if the lovely ACB winds up deciding left on things. then the “this means war!!!” babified left will retort with “hope youre happy”

oh that AOC…

Let me put it this way. Has there ever been a case when a “liberal” justice ever voted in a way that upset liberal voters or politicians?

1 Like